Developers are laughing all the way to Nama

Paddy Samurai

Nama seems to be working for the developers now,and not their

statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers’ return

as Brian promised.

HARRY CROSBIE, one of our more ebullient developers, was on the Saturday Night Show , hosted by Brendan O’Connor, on RTÉ at the weekend talking about the children’s hospital at the Mater, of which he is chairman, writes VINCENT BROWNE
He spoke about the plans to build the hospital and the facilities it will provide and how wonderful it all would be.
He got in to talking about the other projects with which he is involved, including the O2, the Point Village, the Grand Canal Theatre, Vicar Street and the convention centre.
He was asked about how much he owed and about his involvement in Nama and he became evasive.
He denied he owed half a billion euro but said he could not be specific about these matters because Nama required him not to speak of his dealings with it.
He then went on to speak quite a bit about his dealings with Nama and he said some astonishing things. Now it could be that what he said was untrue, but it is very unlikely that he was deliberately deceptive, for, aside from anything else, that would get him into big trouble with Nama.
It could also be that what he said was honestly mistaken. However, that too is unlikely for Harry Crosbie is an able, intelligent fellow, who knows his business and could be trusted to know fully the terms of his relationship with an institution such as Nama, which has enormous relevance for what he and many others are doing.
But before I get to what Harry Crosbie said on Saturday night I want to quote what the late Brian Lenihan said in the Dáil on October 14th, 2009, when speaking in reply to the debate on the second stage of the Nama Bill.
He said: “Another misplaced claim that has been made during the course of the second stage debate is that this Bill represents a bailout for developers. This is just not so.
“Let me be clear – Nama is not designed to be and will not be permitted to operate in practice as a bailout mechanism for developers who have operated irresponsibly.
“The amount a borrower owes will not change because of the transfer of a loan from his bank to Nama. The agency will have a statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers’ return and will therefore be expected to use its entire means to this end. The Bill also provides the agency with the wide range of powers it needs to pursue borrowers and enforce security.
“In some cases this will mean that borrowers’ personal assets will have to be assumed by Nama. In such circumstances, I cannot understand how the misconception that Nama will bail out developers continues to run.”
Now back to Harry Crosbie on Saturday night.
He said Nama had been very helpful in helping to complete the Grand Canal Theatre development by affording working capital to complete the project.
He said Nama had also funded the completion of the Point Village, where there will be offices, residential units, a cinema and other facilities. And then he said: “We will pay back what they [Nama] paid”.
Just to explain that: he borrowed some hundreds of millions from the banks; Nama took over these loans from the banks, but at a discount, and Harry Crosbie will pay back, not what he initially borrowed, but what Nama paid the banks on the transfer of the loans.
In other words, Nama is a device to bail out the developers.
Remember what Brian Lenihan said just two years ago: “The amount a borrower owes will not change because of the transfer of a loan from his bank to Nama. The agency will have a statutory duty to maximise the taxpayers’ return and will therefore be expected to use its entire means to this end.”
According to Harry Crosbie the amount the borrower owes will and has changed and the purpose of Nama is not to maximise the taxpayers’ return (incidentally, I believe the word “taxpayer” is ideologically loaded and I use it here just because Brian Lenihan used the word).
I phoned Nama and asked to speak to their press office. I was told they did not have a press office, that their communications were being handed by Gordon MRM. I got to talk to the managing director and owner of Gordon MRM, Ray Gordon, who told me: “The priority of Nama is to recover the amount Nama paid for the loans”.
He went on to say that Nama would pursue the full amount in many cases, depending on the level of co-operation they had received from the borrower but often there was no point. He said the focus of Nama on recovering the amount Nama paid for the loans had been stated in the latest annual report and in statements made recently on behalf of Nama.
So there you have it.
In spite of all the promises made just two years ago that Nama would not be a bailout agency for developers, Nama is a bailout agency for developers. The developers will not be pursued for every penny they’ve got, they will escape debts of hundreds of millions in many instances, while people in negative equity in their homes will be pursued for every penny they’ve got.
And, we, the people of Ireland, will pick up the tab.
Well done!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1005/1224305257468.html

Just to explain that: he borrowed some hundreds of millions from the banks; Nama took over these loans from the banks, but at a discount, and Harry Crosbie will pay back, not what he initially borrowed, but what Nama paid the banks on the transfer of the loans

So Nama were negotiating on behalf of the developers?.


Yeah I know ,we are all sick hearing about this.But at least we can see in writing ,what we all suspected all along.I suppose you could argue that the developers would'nt go along with it unless they made some money out of it.:(

FatherLen

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

we are all sick hearing about this

you said it.

4leto

Yeah read that The shower of .............

TheZohanS

And what has our current government done to change things? Nothing. They're all the fecking same.

smash

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

I suppose you could argue that the developers would'nt go along with it unless they made some money out of it.:(

Well, developers don't have a choice in going along with it or not. And they are making no money out of it!

4leto

TheZohan wrote: »

And what has our current government done to change things? Nothing. They're all the fecking same.

There is nothing they can do, the loans are paid for and now NAMA have to recoup the losses.

But seen the banks are now effectively nationalised they could scrap NAMA and just put the loans back under the banks management, so they might be able to squeeze a few Euros in savings from staff reductions.

But I am sure it wont be that easy.

4leto

smash wrote: »

Well, developers don't have a choice in going along with it or not. And they are making no money out of it!

They are been paid a substantial wage by NAMA (us) to manage some the property portfolios. But it is probably cheaper and more cost benefiting to do it that way.

What would NAMA know about manageing a Property portfolio.

Freddie59

4leto wrote: »

They are been paid a substantial wage by NAMA (us) to manage some the property portfolios. But it is probably cheaper and more cost benefiting to do it that way.

What would NAMA know about manageing a Property portfolio.

Maybe more than the shower that got us into this (the developers)? I'd say I would even manage it better.

smash

4leto wrote: »

They are been paid a substantial wage by NAMA (us) to manage some the property portfolios. But it is probably cheaper and more cost benefiting to do it that way.

Some are being paid to manage their portfolios!

I've also said a million times that not all NAMA loans are bad loans, some are still operating as usual.

Another bit in the article to back this up would be:
He said Nama had also funded the completion of the Point Village, where there will be offices, residential units, a cinema and other facilities. And then he said: “We will pay back what they [Nama] paid”.

He obviously had a good business plan to support the completion of the developments and NAMA, as the bank, granted him access to funds. After all, they get interest from it. It's very easy to twist someone's words for a sensationalist news article.

4leto wrote: »

What would NAMA know about manageing a Property portfolio.

About as much as the dept of finance know about finance.... sweet fcuk all!

FetchTheGin

We as a nation have really taken a lot of crap over the past few years.

No one will go out and protest either, as evidenced by some already organised.

4leto

Freddie59 wrote: »

Maybe more than the shower that got us into this (the developers)? I'd say I would even manage it better.

LOL

On the surface yes, but would you, its a complicated business. Personally I would hire someone else, some "Johnny Foreigner" who are out of the Irish property circles.

drdeadlift

if we cared we would protest

skelliser

FatherLen wrote: »

we are all sick hearing about this

you said it.

and this apathy is why NAMA exists.

Privatise the profits and socialise the loses.

This is how the scam works:

Developer borrows 100million to build shoe box apartments
Property market goes tits up.
Fianna Fail remember their friends in the Galway tent so they set up NAMA.
NAMA buy the loans ofF the bank for 40million.
What about the other 60million you say?! well we the taxpayer recapitalise the banks to that amount.
NAMA then proceeds to pursue developer for only the 40 million they paid.
Developer is happy and thanks Fianna Fail for bailing them out and socializing 60million of his debt.

Wait! but there is more.
We were told that NAMA will make a profit!
See if NAMA sells the loan for 41million its a "profit" of 1 million when in reality its still a lose of 59million!

Oh, hang there is still more!
We were told that NAMA would NOT allow Developers to buy back the loans/property but there is no legal way to stop developer A setting up company B and buying the loan back.

And finally!
It now seems that NAMA will make a lose on alot of the loans because they overpayed/overvalued the shoe boxes. So in theory the developer can buy back his original 100million loan for less then the 40 million NAMA paid for it. Thus further putting the taxpayer on the hook.

All the while transfering his wealth to the wife and earning 75k+ a year from NAMA to "manage" his business.

Developer can then begin again living the high life etc. whilst John and Mary who bought a house for 450k will have to pay back every last cent.


ONLY IN A BANANA REPUBLIC!
THE BANANA REPUBLIC OF IRELAND!!!

smash

Great grammar to back up your misinformed opinion.

skelliser

smash wrote: »

Great grammar to back up your misinformed opinion.

"misinformed" lol!
please elaborate?!

skelliser

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

I suppose you could argue that the developers would'nt go along with it unless they made some money out of it.:(

Your missing the point.

These people are private citizens with private debts.

We shouldnt be bailing any of them out.

What happened to that ideology, ya, capitalism i beleive its called?!

Paddy Samurai

skelliser wrote: »

Your missing the point.

These people are private citizens with private debts.

We shouldnt be bailing any of them out.

What happened to that ideology, ya, capitalism i beleive its called?!

I agree 100% .


Devils advocate...it would'nt be something I would argue,but I have heard people say you get more off them if they get something out of it.

should have been :mad: not

StephenHendry

skelliser wrote: »

and this apathy is why NAMA exists.

Privatise the profits and socialise the loses.

This is how the scam works:

Developer borrows 100million to build shoe box apartments
Property market goes tits up.
Fianna Fail remember their friends in the Galway tent so they set up NAMA.
NAMA buy the loans ofF the bank for 40million.
What about the other 60million you say?! well we the taxpayer recapitalise the banks to that amount.
NAMA then proceeds to pursue developer for only the 40 million they paid.
Developer is happy and thanks Fianna Fail for bailing them out and socializing 60million of his debt.

Wait! but there is more.
We were told that NAMA will make a profit!
See if NAMA sells the loan for 41million its a "profit" of 1 million when in reality its still a lose of 59million!

Oh, hang there is still more!
We were told that NAMA would NOT allow Developers to buy back the loans/property but there is no legal way to stop developer A setting up company B and buying the loan back.

And finally!
It now seems that NAMA will make a lose on alot of the loans because they overpayed/overvalued the shoe boxes. So in theory the developer can buy back his original 100million loan for less then the 40 million NAMA paid for it. Thus further putting the taxpayer on the hook.

All the while transfering his wealth to the wife and earning 75k+ a year from NAMA to "manage" his business.

Developer can then begin again living the high life etc. whilst John and Mary who bought a house for 450k will have to pay back every last cent.


ONLY IN A BANANA REPUBLIC!
THE BANANA REPUBLIC OF IRELAND!!!

the country of ours is truly fcuked up , anyway of topic but the government now seems to care more about 'important' things like banning ads for cheese on tv. seriously you couldn't make this up

4leto

It also has to be said and very much my own opinion. Although I am one of Vincent Browns greatest fan for his acerbic interviews and his precise mind, the Irish Paxman, but better.

But I think he tends to pander the masses, I sometimes think he sees himself as the peoples champion. His agenda seems to a politicians popularity.

Alright crosbie was allowed funds to complete the Point Villiage, but surely that was a cost productive thing to do, that area does have a future and Crosbie does (kind of) know what he is doing. Now NAMA may recoup some of those losses from that portfolio.

Take NAMAs last high profile sale of their London holdings, I would have held on to them and took an income from them. London like New York property is going to rise again. But they needed the headline.

So bailing out SOME of the devellopers was a clever business plan, just like bailing out the banks, and leaving them to manage themselves rather then the a clueless civil servant managing them.

smash

skelliser wrote: »

"misinformed" lol!
please elaborate?!

Yes, misinformed. Look it up in a dictionary!

skelliser wrote: »

Fianna Fail remember their friends in the Galway tent so they set up NAMA.

Not what happened :rolleyes:

skelliser wrote: »

NAMA buy the loans ofF the bank for 40million.
What about the other 60million you say?! well we the taxpayer recapitalise the banks to that amount.
NAMA then proceeds to pursue developer for only the 40 million they paid.

NAMA is a 10 year plan. It bought the loans at a discount in hopes that over the next 10 years they can sell them at a profit.

skelliser wrote: »

Developer is happy and thanks Fianna Fail for bailing them out and socializing 60million of his debt.

Try, Developer is fcuked and is being pursued for everything they own plus more.

skelliser wrote: »

We were told that NAMA will make a profit!
See if NAMA sells the loan for 41million its a "profit" of 1 million when in reality its still a lose of 59million!

Please see 10 year plan, and recognise that until this plan has ended we will not know what profits were made.

skelliser wrote: »

We were told that NAMA would NOT allow Developers to buy back the loans/property but there is no legal way to stop developer A setting up company B and buying the loan back.

Well apart from having no money to buy back the loans, there is legislation in place to prevent this. Such as the fact that if they owe money and can not pay it back, then they get funding to buy them back from somewhere else, then NAMA will repossess again in pursuit of repayment.

skelliser wrote: »

And finally!
It now seems that NAMA will make a lose on alot of the loans because they overpayed/overvalued the shoe boxes. So in theory the developer can buy back his original 100million loan for less then the 40 million NAMA paid for it. Thus further putting the taxpayer on the hook.

Again, 10 year plan, and they can't buy them back.

skelliser wrote: »

All the while transfering his wealth to the wife and earning 75k+ a year from NAMA to "manage" his business.

Wife will be taken to court for this money if it has been transferred since NAMA was set up, and again not all developers are being paid a salary.

skelliser wrote: »

Developer can then begin again living the high life etc. whilst John and Mary who bought a house for 450k will have to pay back every last cent.

Developer will be pursued for the money until they can either pay it back or they die.

skelliser wrote: »

ONLY IN A BANANA REPUBLIC!
THE BANANA REPUBLIC OF IRELAND!!!

Only in your head.

you're also forgetting one big fact here - NOT ALL LOANS ARE BAD LOANS, NAMA IS RECOUPING A LOT IN INTEREST ON THESE LOANS.

TheBlock

smash wrote: »

Great grammar to back up your misinformed opinion.

Is it not correct that as stated by V Browne some (The Big Fish) developers will no only have to pay back what Nama paid the bank for the loan rather than the original loan amount? This is in contradiction to what the Irish people were told "Nama is not a bail out for developers".
This is Debt forgivness on a huge ****ing scale. Johnny homeowner gets ****ed out of his gaff if he looses his job and can't pay his mortgage Davie Developer can't make his property development buisness work so Nama pay him a wage and reduce the amount he has to make on his borrowings while he stays in his multi million pund gaff and his spouse sits on a pile of assets that he transferred.

It really is this simple...we're being ****ed from the back again and we'll do SFA about it except crib in the boozer over a pint.

Any developer who got loans and cant repay them should be forced into bankruptcy... Simple as.. If you cant act like an adult and pay what you owe then tough titties, off to the dole queue with you.

geetar

cant complain about NAMA. its not working as good as we hoped, but for feck sake what on earth would we have done if it didnt exist?

all of our banks would have collapsed, and we'd be in an even worse state of affairs.

skelliser

smash wrote: »

Yes, misinformed. Look it up in a dictionary!


Not what happened :rolleyes:


NAMA is a 10 year plan. It bought the loans at a discount in hopes that over the next 10 years they can sell them at a profit.please define "profit"


Try, Developer is fcuked and is being pursued for everything they own plus more.
not according to the NAMA pr machine in the article

Please see 10 year plan, and recognise that until this plan has ended we will not know what profits were made.
incorrect, NAMA has already said it overpaid and has thus written down more losses

Well apart from having no money to buy back the loans, there is legislation in place to prevent this. Such as the fact that if they owe money and can not pay it back, then they get funding to buy them back from somewhere else, then NAMA will repossess again in pursuit of repayment.
incorrect see this http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/is-nama-selling-loans-back-to-borrowers-below-book-value/

How open was NAMA’s sale of loans in the Maybourne hotel group, reported here where the buyers were said to be the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB and Robert Tchenguiz. Maybourne is the company which controls three luxury hotels inLondon, and one of its principal shareholders is Paddy McKillen though the loans sold may have related to Derek Quinlan’s shareholding.

Again, 10 year plan, and they can't buy them back.


Wife will be taken to court for this money if it has been transferred since NAMA was set up, and again not all developers are being paid a salary.
show me a succesful case

Developer will be pursued for the money until they can either pay it back or they die.
again not according to NAMA and Harry Crosbie

Only in your head.

you're also forgetting one big fact here - NOT ALL LOANS ARE BAD LOANS, NAMA IS RECOUPING A LOT IN INTEREST ON THESE LOANS.
i think you will find that this is a small percentage

Do you beleive everything Lenny and Frank Fahey told you or what?!!

Zebra3

geetar wrote: »

cant complain about NAMA. its not working as good as we hoped, but for feck sake what on earth would we have done if it didnt exist?

all of our banks would have collapsed, and we'd be in an even worse state of affairs.

:rolleyes:

They were not our banks, they were owned by private shareholders.

smash

skelliser wrote: »

please define "profit"

Self explanatory really.

skelliser wrote: »

not according to the NAMA pr machine in the article

Well, according to every other NAMA press release.

skelliser wrote: »

incorrect, NAMA has already said it overpaid and has thus written down more losses

So that's NAMA's fck up, what's it got to do with the developers?

skelliser wrote: »

incorrect see this http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/20...ow-book-value/

and one of its principal shareholders is Paddy McKillen though the loans sold may have related to Derek Quinlan’s shareholding

Read the quote again... he didn't go and set up another company. A company he's a shareholder in bought the loan. That's perfectly legal.

skelliser wrote: »

show me a succesful case

There hasn't been any successful or unsuccessful cases because what you're saying hasn't happened.

skelliser wrote: »

again not according to NAMA and Harry Crosbie

I thought we'd recognised that Crosbie obviously had a good plan if he was granted finance.

skelliser wrote: »

i think you will find that this is a small percentage

How would you know? they've taken over thousands of loans but only a few have been talked about.

skelliser wrote: »

Do you beleive everything Lenny and Frank Fahey told you or what?!!

No, but you're obviously believing all the sensationalist hype.

You, and everyone here know nothing about the operation of NAMA or the financial circumstances of any of the developers involved. Everything you state is opinion based.

I know people who's loans are with NAMA. Good and bad! You want to know who's to blame for the mess, it's the banks!

johnners2981

smash wrote: »

Well, developers don't have a choice in going along with it or not. And they are making no money out of it!

That sounds like developer talk to me. Get em boys

skelliser

smash wrote: »

Self explanatory really.

Well, according to every other NAMA press release.
This PR company handle all of NAMA's communications.


So that's NAMA's fck up, what's it got to do with the developers?
and who is financing NAMA? oh right that would be us!


Read the quote again... he didn't go and set up another company. A company he's a shareholder in bought the loan. That's perfectly legal.
Yes, i know but we were told Ad nauseam by Lenny and Co. that this wouldnt be allowed happen and guess what its happening.

There hasn't been any successful or unsuccessful cases because what you're saying hasn't happened.
supposedly there is "proceedings" underway in a few cases, wonder how long this will take, years of course.


I thought we'd recognised that Crosbie obviously had a good plan if he was granted finance.
If Crosbie had a good plan then he wouldnt be in NAMA now would he?


How would you know? they've taken over thousands of loans but only a few have been talked about.

http://www.merchant.ie/news/2010/04/13/only-33-of-nama-loans-performing/

that repayments are only being made on 33% of loans put into NAMA

That means 77% are not!!



No, but you're obviously believing all the sensationalist hype.

You, and everyone here know nothing about the operation of NAMA or the financial circumstances of any of the developers involved. Everything you state is opinion based.

I know people who's loans are with NAMA. Good and bad! You want to know who's to blame for the mess, it's the banks!

oh yes that old fairytale, its the banks!
Just like it was lehmans brothers, credit crunch, Fianna Fail spiel blah blah blah.

Or maybe it was property speculators who havent a clue on how to run a business!! Build tens of thousands of houses that no one will ever buy.
When no one bought, build more, when they didnt buy get your FF friends to cut taxes to incentivise buying and so on and on.

At the end of the day the ponzai scheme that developers, Politicans and bankers were running blow up in their faces and we the taxpayer were left pissing in the wind!!


And in case you hadnt noticed we own the banks now!
we are the banks!!

geetar

Zebra3 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

They were not our banks, they were owned by private shareholders.

well thats a stupid point really considering our money was/is in them.

when i say bank collapse, im worried about everyone losing all of their money in their accounts, not people losing shares.

so roll your eyes somewhere else. :rolleyes:

Son Of A Vidic

smash wrote: »

You, and everyone here know nothing about the operation of NAMA.

Ah now will you just stop that, everyone knows NAMA was set up for the scum Developers.

smash wrote: »

You want to know who's to blame for the mess, it's the banks!

Along with those muppets you allegedly know of course?

Zebra3

geetar wrote: »

well thats a stupid point really considering our money was/is in them.

No, stating fact is not a stupid point.

Our money was already guaranteed.

geetar wrote: »

when i say bank collapse, im worried about everyone losing all of their money in their accounts, not people losing shares.

so roll your eyes somewhere else. :rolleyes:

Seen as how you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, take your own advice. :rolleyes:

Solnskaya

I won't do my usual mouthing off because this is a bit close to home, but perhaps what Harry was saying was a little bit of showmanship?
A lot of properties have very complex ownership structures and interdependent loans to various separate entities that are connected by association with a particular project/asset.
Ownership is not always transparent and culpability for borrowings associated with a particular undertaking may not always rest on one single individual, but may well involve other, much larger players that are indeed systemic to the economic well-being and employment prospects for a large swathe of people.
In some cases, and perhaps in this case, NAMA may be taking the only course of action open to them, a course of action that will likly ensure that the livelihood of thousands of ordinary working people are not destroyed simply to "be seen" to bring to book certain well known individuals, individuals that are perhaps not as important as we may be led to believe.:)

Zebra3

Solnskaya wrote: »

I won't do my usual mouthing off because this is a bit close to home, but perhaps what Harry was saying was a little bit of showmanship?
A lot of properties have very complex ownership structures and interdependent loans to various separate entities that are connected by association with a particular project/asset.
Ownership is not always transparent and culpability for borrowings associated with a particular undertaking may not always rest on one single individual, but may well involve other, much larger players that are indeed systemic to the economic well-being and employment prospects for a large swathe of people.
In some cases, and perhaps in this case, NAMA may be taking the only course of action open to them, a course of action that will likly ensure that the livelihood of thousands of ordinary working people are not destroyed simply to "be seen" to bring to book certain well known individuals, individuals that are perhaps not as important as we may be led to believe.:)

The liveihood of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people are being destroyed by the bailing out of these crooks, whose livelihoods are being maintained, in the thousands?

pragmatic1

TheZohan wrote: »

And what has our current government done to change things? Nothing. They're all the fecking same.

That shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone. We're far too complacent in this country. If half this **** happened anywhere else there would be riots.

4leto

pragmatic1 wrote: »

That shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone. We're far too complacent in this country. If half this **** happened anywhere else there would be riots.

We are actually doing very well, we are getting headlines around the world, we are recovering. A 1 to 2% growth rate this year and we are spending again.

Ireland will recover quickly as long as the the rest of the world behaves itself....I know that is a big ask.

Solnskaya

Zebra3 wrote: »

The liveihood of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people are being destroyed by the bailing out of these crooks, whose livelihoods are being maintained, in the thousands?

Go figure who owns what and just how many thousands of people rely on the viability of those who quietly own a lot of these high profile developments. It's not always as clear cut as is made out and the consequences of bancrupting some people outweigh the bad taste in the mouth left by bailing them out. The public view of what actually happens in NAMA is usually about as accurate as the public view of what actually happens in x-factor. I'm not a NAMA fan, but it's not as clear cut or simple as is being made out.:)

Ace2007

Edz87 wrote: »

Any developer who got loans and cant repay them should be forced into bankruptcy... Simple as.. If you cant act like an adult and pay what you owe then tough titties, off to the dole queue with you.

Should this not be for any business, and not just developers?
If a business expanded durin the boom and now cannot meet repayments, should we declare the owers bankrupt?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

4leto wrote: »

We are actually doing very well, we are getting headlines around the world, we are recovering. A 1 to 2% growth rate this year and we are spending again.

Ireland will recover quickly as long as the the rest of the world behaves itself....I know that is a big ask.

Tell that to the 450K people unemployed.

ascanbe

Solnskaya wrote: »

Go figure who owns what and just how many thousands of people rely on the viability of those who quietly own a lot of these high profile developments. It's not always as clear cut as is made out and the consequences of bancrupting some people outweigh the bad taste in the mouth left by bailing them out. The public view of what actually happens in NAMA is usually about as accurate as the public view of what actually happens in x-factor. I'm not a NAMA fan, but it's not as clear cut or simple as is being made out.:)

Well you certainly do a fair impression of a fan.
And it really is as clear cut and simple as is being made out; Skeliiser did a fair summation of the situation a few posts in.
Unless you're suggesting that, even though these developers have been relieved of large percentage of their debt courtesy of Nama, and the tax-payer has been forced to pay off the difference in the form of bailing out the banks, their 'expertise' is now needed to ensure that the 'portfolios' they are now managing, for a fee, will eventually realise their 'value' to the extent that they'll be able to pay back what 'Nama', i.e. a government agency, i.e. the citizens of this country, paid for these loans after the 'haircut', to use that incredibly irritating little bit of terminology.
Firstly, do you really think there is any realistic possibility of this coming anywhere close to happening?
Secondly, why are these 'developers', those responsible for taking out the loans that, due to our previous governments decision to socialse their debt, in large part created the mess that 'Nama' is now ostensibly tasked with cleaning up, the people deemed capable of best managing these 'portfolios'?
They've already proven themselves to be utter failures in this business: and that's before you get into the sheer immorality of the situation and the socially destabilising aspect of the people of this country, now left to pick up the tab for these speculators, witnessing them not only being relieved of their debts/not facing bankruptcy, as they should, but, in many cases, actually profiting from their ineptitude.

Zebra3

Solnskaya wrote: »

Go figure who owns what and just how many thousands of people rely on the viability of those who quietly own a lot of these high profile developments.

No, you made a claim, so back it up.

smash

skelliser wrote: »

If Crosbie had a good plan then he wouldnt be in NAMA now would he?

This single sentence proves you know nothing about NAMA, because performing or not, if you had over 5m in property loans with the top Irish banks, your accounts were automatically moved to NAMA.

charlemont

Shocking stuff.

skelliser

smash wrote: »

This single sentence proves you know nothing about NAMA, because performing or not, if you had over 5m in property loans with the top Irish banks, your accounts were automatically moved to NAMA.

no it just proves that NAMA was and is a property developer bailout.

nothing more.

If Crosbies loans were performing then he should be let out of NAMA. Simple.

AeoNGriM

FatherLen wrote: »

you said it.

I can see the shotgun held to the side of your head, forcing you to click on the thread, spend 5 minutes reading it's entirety, then replying.

Isn't it terrible what you have to put up with on a public message forum? Awwwwwwww....everybody!.........AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

:rolleyes:

smash

skelliser wrote: »

no it just proves that NAMA was and is a property developer bailout.

It is not a bailout. There are developers out there with good and bad loans under the same portfolio. The good loans are covering the costs of the bad loans but NAMA is insisting on them selling everything to pay back their initial loans (not what NAMA paid for them). This way NAMA make a profit and the company goes out of business which is wrong, as the loan repayments are being met. The developer has no comeback. How in the name of god is that a fkn bailout?

skelliser wrote: »

If Crosbies loans were performing then he should be let out of NAMA. Simple.

:rolleyes: You can't be let out of NAMA unless you go to another bank to take over the loans which involves a lot of work and new terms in a foreign bank.

TheBlock

smash wrote: »

It is not a bailout. There are developers out there with good and bad loans under the same portfolio. The good loans are covering the costs of the bad loans but NAMA is insisting on them selling everything to pay back their initial loans (not what NAMA paid for them)..

That's not what the B'oul Harry said though is it. He said he'd pay back Nama what they paid for the Loan and all would be rosey again. Thats also not what NAMA confirmed when V Browne spoke to their PR guy. He also said that they would be chasing the developer for what Nama paid for the loan. Who's picking up the shortfall by pumping the difference into the banks?

smash

TheBlock wrote: »

That's not what the B'oul Harry said though is it. He said he'd pay back Nama what they paid for the Loan and all would be rosey again. Thats also not what NAMA confirmed when V Browne spoke to their PR guy. He also said that they would be chasing the developer for what Nama paid for the loan. Who's picking up the shortfall by pumping the difference into the banks?

If you have a loan for 15m and NAMA buy it off a bank for 7m. Your loan still stands at 15m!

I have no idea of the workings behind Crosbie's loans, but you pay back your loan, not NAMA's loan.

Considering he was granted access to funds, he could be talking about paying back those funds. Which wouldn't have been bought at a discount.

TheBlock

smash wrote: »

If you have a loan for 15m and NAMA buy it off a bank for 7m. Your loan still stands at 15m!

I have no idea of the workings behind Crosbie's loans, but you pay back your loan, not NAMA's loan.

Considering he was granted access to funds, he could be talking about paying back those funds. Which wouldn't have been bought at a discount.

OK So you didn't see the interview or read the article that has everyone up in arms. Maybe you should and then comment. You may just change your view.

smash

TheBlock wrote: »

OK So you didn't see the interview or read the article that has everyone up in arms. Maybe you should and then comment. You may just change your view.

See the interview, no. Read the article, yes!

"He said Nama had been very helpful in helping to complete the Grand Canal Theatre development by affording working capital to complete the project.

He said Nama had also funded the completion of the Point Village, where there will be offices, residential units, a cinema and other facilities. And then he said: “We will pay back what they [Nama] paid”."

The amount of money the government will raise from the completion of these projects will be enormous. As I said already, I don't know about the workings of his loans but it could be the case that a deal was cut in exchange for a profit share. Or he could still be talking about the funds he was granted access to.

If it's the case then it would be the first bit of forward thinking by NAMA rather than sell and run which hasn't worked out.

Fighting Irish

skelliser wrote: »

and this apathy is why NAMA exists.

Privatise the profits and socialise the loses.

This is how the scam works:

Developer borrows 100million to build shoe box apartments
Property market goes tits up.
Fianna Fail remember their friends in the Galway tent so they set up NAMA.
NAMA buy the loans ofF the bank for 40million.
What about the other 60million you say?! well we the taxpayer recapitalise the banks to that amount.
NAMA then proceeds to pursue developer for only the 40 million they paid.
Developer is happy and thanks Fianna Fail for bailing them out and socializing 60million of his debt.

Wait! but there is more.
We were told that NAMA will make a profit!
See if NAMA sells the loan for 41million its a "profit" of 1 million when in reality its still a lose of 59million!

Oh, hang there is still more!
We were told that NAMA would NOT allow Developers to buy back the loans/property but there is no legal way to stop developer A setting up company B and buying the loan back.

And finally!
It now seems that NAMA will make a lose on alot of the loans because they overpayed/overvalued the shoe boxes. So in theory the developer can buy back his original 100million loan for less then the 40 million NAMA paid for it. Thus further putting the taxpayer on the hook.

All the while transfering his wealth to the wife and earning 75k+ a year from NAMA to "manage" his business.

Developer can then begin again living the high life etc. whilst John and Mary who bought a house for 450k will have to pay back every last cent.


ONLY IN A BANANA REPUBLIC!
THE BANANA REPUBLIC OF IRELAND!!!

and all this would not even matter if "the people" didn't buy buy buy!

TheBlock

smash wrote: »

See the interview, no. Read the article, yes!

"He said Nama had been very helpful in helping to complete the Grand Canal Theatre development by affording working capital to complete the project.

He said Nama had also funded the completion of the Point Village, where there will be offices, residential units, a cinema and other facilities. And then he said: “We will pay back what they [Nama] paid”."

The amount of money the government will raise from the completion of these projects will be enormous. As I said already, I don't know about the workings of his loans but it could be the case that a deal was cut in exchange for a profit share. Or he could still be talking about the funds he was granted access to.

If it's the case then it would be the first bit of forward thinking by NAMA rather than sell and run which hasn't worked out.

You still seem to be missing the piont. I've highlighted it for you. He should pay back what he borrowed...All of it just like any other borrower (Mortgage holders included) if he can't he should be made bankrupt and everyone of his assets sold. I'm not saying do it now, sure give him time to work it out (not infinite amount) but don't right off his debt or if you are I'll have some of that too.

Regarding a profit share how can he be making a profit if he's not paying back what he owes?